It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Their was a website...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
That recently got on the news for their ideas about 9/11 and how it was done by the goverment. Was that abovetopsecret




posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
There's a website:

letsroll911.org - it might be the one you're thinking of.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by elemtalsage
That recently got on the news for their ideas about 9/11 and how it was done by the goverment. Was that abovetopsecret


i dont think so, it would have been very public on this board if we made the airwaves



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
It's also the catch phrase which was supposedly what one of the heros said on the flight that crashed in PA...I assume that the victim's family is a little upset over the fact that someone is using that as a url for a conspiracy theory site....

Oh well...such is the public domain...just b/c the guy died saying it in a tragic event doesn't mean he owns it....



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I thought I heard something about this site

911research.com...

there are tons of very good websites on the subject
simply do a google search.

In fact there is a very good thread on the subject here at ATS

Bombs in the building 'conspiracy theory' is a conspiracy fact
can be found in the political conspiracy forum



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
I assume that the victim's family is a little upset over the fact that someone is using that as a url for a conspiracy theory site....



Communities of researchers that are digging through available evidence and getting past the Bush administration's stonewalled enquiries and cover-ups don't view their published material as "conspiracy theory websites".

[edit on 5-7-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Communities of researchers that are digging through available eveidence and getting past the Bush administration's stonewalled enquiries and cover-ups don't view their published material as "conspiracy theory websites".

While I wouldn’t hesitate to agree MA, I think that at the time I wrote that statement I was keeping the viewpoint of "the general public" in mind.....

Most people think any challenges to what's pressed directly in their face is instantly a "conspiracy theory" (Defined in a different manner than most here would view that phrase) and thus dubbed as rubbish.....


....Or I could have just been randomly posting while drunk.....



[edit on 7/5/2005 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
We were (incorrectly) quoted in Scientific American recently regarding the 9/11 incident and possible government involvement.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonGray
We were (incorrectly) quoted in Scientific American recently regarding the 9/11 incident and possible government involvement.


What wankers, I'd sue if I was you or make them retract the article.


You so know you want to.

[edit on 5/7/2005 by Odium]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join